Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

High Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Expert Committee's Opinion on Revised Answer Key

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chandigarh, May 29, 2023: In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal challenging the opinion of an expert committee regarding the revised answer key for a recruitment examination conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC). The appellant, Monu, had filed the appeal after his writ petition was dismissed by the court.

The appellant had applied for the position of Clerk in response to an advertisement issued by the HSSC in 2015. After appearing in the written examination in 2016 and securing 152 marks, the appellant was called for an interview. However, due to a query raised by another candidate regarding the correctness of an answer in the model answer key, the expert committee reviewed the matter and revised the answer key. Consequently, the appellant was not appointed to the position.

The appellant obtained the revised answer key through the Right to Information Act, 2005, and challenged the correctness of the answer to the disputed question. However, his efforts with the HSSC did not yield any result, leading him to file a writ petition before the High Court.

The Single Judge, after examining the matter and considering the respondent's response, held that the court cannot question the correctness of the expert committee's opinion. The Single Judge further noted that the change in the answer applied to all candidates and that the appellant had approached the court after a significant delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Shanker Jha (Chief Justice) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Palli, upheld the decision of the Single Judge. The Division Bench referred to Supreme Court precedents that emphasized that once a matter has been examined by experts, the court is not required to question the correctness of their opinion. In this case, an expert committee had examined the correctness of the disputed answer and revised the answer key accordingly.

Considering the timeline of events, the Division Bench concluded that taking up the issue at this stage would not serve any meaningful purpose. The advertisement was issued in 2015, the examination was held in 2016, the result was published in 2017, and the revised result was declared in 2018, with selections from the select list already made.

The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of by the court.

Date of decision : 25.05.2023

Monu vs Haryana Staff Selection Commissio

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/25-May-2023-Monu-vs-Haryana-Staff-Selc-P^0H.pdf"]

Latest Legal News